md_architecture_compliance_audit

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Audit' suggests a read-only operation, but the description does not confirm whether there are side effects, permission requirements, or what the audit entails beyond the baseline. No additional behavioral context is given.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, focused sentence that directly states the purpose and scope. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the action verb.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with no parameters and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. The description clearly states what is audited and against which baseline, providing sufficient context. Slightly more detail on what constitutes the 'public MCP surface' could improve completeness, but it is adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and since there are no parameters, there is no missing semantics to compensate for.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('audit') and names a clear resource ('the public MCP surface') with a specific baseline ('reviewed Windows/MS 2023 safety baseline'). This distinguishes it from sibling audit-like tools such as md_scientific_gate_audit or md_model_readiness_assess by focusing on the MCP surface and compliance baseline.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is used when one needs to verify compliance of the MCP surface against the safety baseline, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over other audit tools, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.